Media coverage on yesterday's smelt decision
As noted yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Bureau of Reclamation must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service when it chooses to renew various contracts for water from the Central Valley Project. Media articles quote one water-user lawyer describing the decision as merely “procedural,” and another water-user attorney as “destabilizing.”
I would say that they’re both right. The ruling is procedural in the sense that the Bureau technically just has to consult but doesn’t necessarily have to reduce water deliveries to these contractors, but the ruling is also destabilizing because it’s certainly possible (perhaps even likely) that water deliveries will be affected, even though these particular contracts had been thought largely immune from Delta smelt regulation.
What to read next
Our friends at Institute for Justice have convinced the Supreme Court to soon decide in the case Timbs v. Indiana whether the Constitution restrains states (and not just the federal government) from … ›
This morning the Ninth Circuit released this opinion in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, a case about whether California can demand confidential donor forms from nonprofit organizations operating within … ›